Shri Jagdishchandra M. Bhatt, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Baroda

ITA 3027/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0707 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3027/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) JAGDISHCHANDRA M. BHATT, PROP. PRATHAM PERFUMERY, 28B, ASHIRWAD SOCIETY, HARNI WARASIA RING ROAD, BOARD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), BARODA. [PAN NO. ACNPB 4785 F] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : --NONE-- RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 02/07/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/07/2019 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- V, BARODA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2014 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD 5(4), BA RODA UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO T HE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE B Y REGISTERED POST AS PER THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO. 36. HOWEV ER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. FROM THIS, IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS TO PURSUE ITS CASE. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS-B.N. BH ATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC) OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL MEANS EF FECTIVELY PURSUING IT. HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR-VS-CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) - 2 - DISMISSED THE REFERENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR N OT TAKING NECESSARY STEPS. SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MU LTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON- PROSECUTION. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO APPLY FOR THE RECALL OF THE ORDER WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AFTER FURNISHING THE SUITABLE R EASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03/07/2019 SD/- SD/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03/07/2019 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. () / THE CIT(A)-V, BARODA. 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 02/07/2019 (COVERED CASE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 02/07/2019 3. OTHER MEMBER. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER